NPA decision on Zuma is right

In light of the judgment of Judge Chris Nicholson in Pietermaritzburg on Friday the National Prosecuting Authority was left with little choice but to appeal the decision.

As things stand a prima facie case on the merits exists against the ANC president and if the NPA were to fail to proceed with it, it would constitute a failure to carry out their duties.

In his decision the judge confirmed that there is a duty on the NPA to prosecute where a prima facie case exists and criticised the former Minister of Justice and Bulelane Ngcuka for not proceeding with the case against Jacob Zuma at the time that Shabir Shaik stood trial, calling their decision “strange” and “bizarre”.

Accordingly any suggestions that the NPA’s decision was political or based on some ulterior motive, in light of the judge’s criticism, are not only baseless but totally unfair.

If the NPA had elected to cure the procedural defect, rather than appeal, and afforded Jacob Zuma the opportunity to make representations before deciding whether to charge him, they would not have been afforded the opportunity to answer the serious allegations levelled against them by the judge. This route as I said before was highly unlikely.

As stated in my detailed analysis of the decision, the judge went to great lengths to point out that it was not a decision based upon the merits of the case. In simple terms the judge did not consider the ANC president’s guilt or innocence on the charges but rather held that they were invalid based on a legal technicality.

http://thoughtleader.co.za/traps/2008/09/14/zuma-decision-something-fishy/

Accordingly the attacks on the NPA from some quarters, primarily supporters of the ANC president, are inappropriate and show a lack of understanding of the decision by the judge as well as a total disregard for what was set out in his judgment.

What today’s decision by the NPA means is that they have made application for leave to appeal. This will be heard before the same judge and is not the appeal but rather asking the judge whether they may appeal to another court against his decision.

If granted, a formal appeal is made to a higher court while if it is refused, the NPA will be required to petition for the opportunity to appeal this decision. If that is refused then that will be game over for this route but the NPA would still be able to cure the procedural defect and then go down that avenue.

If the leave is granted and the appeal itself is successful we’ll be looking for a trial date again. If they go down the other route it will mean formulating charges and calling for representations.

Whichever way this pans out it will take us way past the elections before finality is reached.

The alternatives of a political solution before or after the election as well as other debates will also be ongoing. The decision has afforded us some breathing space to try and reach a decision while the tension created by the lack of time available has been reduced.

Regardless, it is time for the ANC to explain to its followers and the general public exactly what the judgment entails. At present it seems as if people are under the misapprehension that a decision equivalent to a verdict of not guilty was handed down.

That is not the case.

In addition, they must never lose sight of who the parties involved in the conspiracy were as well as the parties who were threatening the criminal justice system in order to undo the same. It all leads back to one party.

Don’t compound the problem by attacking people who are simply doing their jobs or allow the country to be threatened by thugs.

It is also time for those who claim to support the ANC president to stop running off at a tangent.

While the ANC are calling for parties not to speculate about their decision on the president pending the outcome of their meetings all hell is breaking loose. Everyone simply carries on regardless. This at a time before the NPA decision was known. In other words we’ll die for Zuma but we have no intention of listening to him. We have our own agendas to worry about.

Then in response to the NPA decision some geniuses immediately start the threats and the nonsense again. They ignore the contents of the judgment, which they hailed as wonderful. Along the lines of: “we’ll die to uphold the judgment as long as we don’t have to read it or act in accordance with it”, naturally to be followed up with their customary indignance when the media reports on what they are saying.

Spare us all your arrogance.